A US tech company says its chief executive has quit after he was apparently caught on a big screen at a Coldplay concert embracing a female co-worker, in a clip that went viral.
The clip showed a man and a woman hugging on a jumbo screen at the arena in Foxborough, Massachusetts, before they abruptly ducked and hid from the camera.
The pair were identified in US media as Mr Byron, a married chief executive of Astronomer, and Kristin Cabot, the firm’s chief people officer.
I think the best joke I’ve seen about this so far has been
“Coldplay hasn’t put out a single in years, but in one night they made 2”
4 actually
Seems like if they hadn’t reacted to their images on the screen, this whole thing would have gone unnoticed.
I’ve seen this response a ton and I think that’s exactly correct, but I can’t imagine the anxiety in the hours, day and weeks after. Just waiting and wondering if anyone recognised you, if anyone had a recording/proof. Then after a few months under the radar I might not be a complete train wreck.
But then what if Coldplay puts out a Netflix special or something, then I’d have to wait and wait until it came out and then watch it and see if that moment makes it into the recording… And if it does? Now I’m just waiting for some random friend of a friend to watch it and go “hang on…”
I think I’d rather this timeline, if I was that idot.
Probably why I’d never cheat on my partner, especially at a huge public gathering, when the person I’m cheating with is an employee and I’m the fucking CEO and could lose my job over it.
Thankfully this man will certainly continue to fail up, and as soon as this news quiets down he’ll get hired by some other goon just like him to some other lucrative job where you just have to be an asshole a few times a week and otherwise the money will roll right in.
This would have been over in fifteen minutes if it hadn’t been hard pushed to distract from Epstein.
Just look at the fucking Internet! Actual news media!
OH YEAH GIVE US THE GOSS ON THESE FUCKING RANDOS LITERALLY NOBODY KNEW THE NAMES OF TWO DAYS AGO!
If they had just made out like everyone else does, nobody would have cared who they were. It wouldn’t have gone viral. Wife still might have found out about it, but I don’t think that would have changed much.
Yeah, it’s textbook Trump (formerly Streisand) Effect.
Just couldn’t handle the shame of being caught attending a Coldplay gig
I don’t really listen to their music, but they put on a good show.
I HAVE FORGOTTEN ABOUT EPSTEIN ALTOGETHER! WHO EVEN IS HE!
I’ve never seen more synthetic engagement with a topic in years. It’s insanity how this bullshit got so pressed on the public, did you see Reddit? They flooded this random drama on every single sub, if you didn’t catch how obviously it was coordinated then you need to take a double espresso and bash your head against the wall a few times to wake up.
People can remember two things, and lots of people like drama. This is a short laugh at a CEO getting a very small amount of comeuppance. It’s not going to make us forget how terrible Trump is or that the government is actively covering up for pedophiles.
We need small breaks of laughter to keep sane sometimes.
Why did this story distract you so easily
…meanwhile. Elon Musk out here handing out vials of cum at parties. What a cool guy.
Maybe we need to reign in the upper class a bit.
Hey, yeah, Epstein! I know about that guy! I read about EPSTEIN in the papers and shit!
That’s who we were talking about right?
Nah, but he needs to resign for similar reasons as OP’s subject POS.
Its so weird tha dude had to resign and get suspended just because he had an affair.
Dont get me wrong, dude is a scumbag (like most CEOs) for cheating on his wife and so is the lady who also cheated on their partner. Without question they did wrong and should face their personal consequences.
But why in the USA hell is this an issue on the work side - it shouldn’t be Let whoever fuck with whoever non of the companies business.
He was technically her boss. And he gave her that job. Was it because she was sleeping with him? That will certainly cause people at the company to assume so. So whenevr the next person doesn’t get a promo, they will sue because the company fostered an environment where you only get ahead by having sex with your superiors. Also, most companies have a written policy about fraternizing with subordinates. It usually states termination as a consequence of breaking the policy.
Also, most companies have a written policy about fraternizing with subordinates. It usually states termination as a consequence of breaking the policy.
This is completely fucking moronic. Employees are not a company property. Good there is the article 8 (right to private life) of Humans Rights Act in the UK, stopping madness like this.
I am from the UK and this wouldn’t fly here either.
You can’t be sleeping with your employees dude that’s a clear power imbalance dynamic and you would be fired here too for having a relationship with a subordinate.
It’s not like companies give a shit who you sleeping with but they have rules in place to prevent abuses of power and also to protect their own image.
Seems pretty naive that you can only see this from a very limited angle.
You can be sleeping with your employees dude that’s a clear power imbalance dynamic and you would be fired here too for having a relationship with a subordinate.
Educate yourself.
https://www.employmentlawreview.co.uk/personal-relationships-at-work-what-does-uk-law-say/
You can be forced to disclose relationships and sacked if you fail to do so. You cannot be sacked for having a relationship.
Completely banning personal relationships at work would likely breach an employee’s right to a private life. However, that doesn’t mean employers can’t put measures in place to mitigate risks to the business caused by such relationships. Policies employers may want to consider implementing include:
Ensuring that employees disclose any workplace relationships they have so that appropriate steps can be taken to minimise risks
Restricting employees who deal with recruitment from the process if it involves someone they have a personal relationship with
Potentially changing an employee’s manager if they’re in a relationship with their current one, providing this doesn’t discriminate against them
I don’t believe I said it was the law. I’m saying most companies have policies against it.
Read again. You cannot be sacked for having a relationship and companies are not allowed to forbid that. Admit you were wrong and move on.
Hey if you can show me some legal precedence then perhaps I’ll admit to being wrong but you only provided a non official article discussing this not some legal precedence of these rules in employment contracts being contested and overturned in a court of law.
Your article clearly says they can have policies about it. The penalty for not following policies is often termination. So the article doesn’t say what you are claiming it does.
Note in your first paragraph of the quote, it only says likely. So even they admit that there is wiggle room. Nothing in the article specifically protected the right to have a relationship with a subordinate, and in fact says if disclosed they can move people so they are no long subordinate as a result of thier relationship. Which is clearly not saying that company policy can’t involve consequences for having a relationship with a subordinate.
The CEO wasn’t transparent about it to the board, so he can be fired for that.
He was married, so he would be breaking a law by having sex with anyone else in many jurisdictions, and the bad image/press that gives the company would be enough to fire him even if it wasn’t illegal where he is.
The liability alone that she “could” claim she felt pressured into the relationship because he was the boss would likely give them cause to fire him based on his contract.
I am not aware of any instances where it is against the law to cheat on your wife.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery_laws “There are fifteen[6] countries in which stoning is authorized as lawful punishment” (for adultery)
Plenty more it is just illegal.
16 us states.
Punishment and enforcement vary. But it is certainly against the law in a lot of places. In others it will put you “at fault” in divorce proceedings. So maybe not illegal, but has legal consequences.
Are you seriously suggesting is perfectly normal in the UK for the CEO to have an affair with the head of HR that he hired, and no one would complain because of human rights act?
The Europeans had, and still have in some cases, dynastic royalty and state religions and stuff. They’re surprisingly backward in a lot of ways. The personal freedom to use your power imbalance at work for sexual gratification seems like the sort of thing they’d never move forward away from.
Look, I come from the middle east where my entire life way ruled over by monarchs installed by England and currently controlled by America… They are literally untouchable, more so than ornamental monarchs like Europe. And if a big shot company owner is caught having an affair, they could literally both be killed by their respective families… I don’t think European CEOs can get away with it because they have royalty.
Royalty (even ornamental) in the 21st century is just an example of having backwards and ridiculously outmoded cultural constructs. I admit that I could have phrased that better.
European résumés include photographs and marital status, which would be an outrageous reach into one’s personal life in the states. It’s not surprising that they’re ok with the idea that bosses should be able to have relationships with their employees and still keep their jobs. I guess that makes the resumes make more sense.
It is perfectly normal to not have your personal life controlled by a company, yes.
Blows USians mind, eh?
You’re not understanding the full context of this situation. And then acting like everyone else here are the dumb ones.
You should just stop embarrassing yourself.
Either doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to understand. I’m not sure
You should just stop embarrassing yourself.
Are you a teenager? 🙄
I’m not a USian, I just have critical thinking skills.
It’s called conflict of interest, and disclosure is often required to avoid accusations of favoritism.
Disclosure - yes. That can be requested and an employee may be sacked if he fails to disclose such information. Unlike USA however, companies are unable to tell an employee to NOT have a relationship with someone at work. It can make a decision to move employees in relationship to other teams if for example there is a risk involved.
That can be requested and an employee may be sacked if he fails to disclose such information
That’s what happened here… He didn’t disclose the relationship because it was an affair.
Unlike USA however, companies are unable to tell an employee to NOT have a relationship with someone at work.
It isn’t real just because you imagine it… That’s not how it works in the US.
Once again, America shows how “free” they actually are.
And to show that the protection is not theoretical in Europe: Walmart implemented that policy when they tried getting into the German market twenty years ago. They were so insistent that it took a judge to tell them to stop it since it was against the law(It’s sraight up against the first and second article of the German constitution, which protects personal freedom).
They were free to disclose it. It is this way because people have used interoffice relationships to better their positions and create favor, which leads to an imbalanced an unfair workplace. Having a secret romance in the office has the potential for failure at best.
Got a source? Sounds like an interesting story. I can’t read german though…
If you do a “germany walmart before:2023” search, you’ll find a bunch of English articles about the whole ordeal. It was in Forbes, NYT, etc. almsot twenty years ago because of how badly they failed on multiple levels.
Seems like they were trying to ban all relationships between any employes. That wouldn’t fly in the US either.
Thank you, try to explain it to morons who downvoted my comment.
So what happens when a CEO uses his position of power to force somebody into a relationship how does she prove that it was not consensual? These rules are in place to make sure the underlings are protected.
If she gets promoted because she had sex with the boss, you’re telling me that won’t create a hostile work environment for the rest of the people that work there? If they are passed over for a promotion?
If she gets promotion, even if it was a earned promotion, you’re telling me the rest of the office won’t question it if she gets that promotion because of a belief that she got it because she slept with the boss?
There’s a lot that the US gets wrong. This is one item we got right. Yes, they are free to sleep with whoever they want, but they have to disclose it to the company. And there cannot be a boss underling type relationship if they are sleeping with each other.
But this has been explained to you by other people and you just are basically ignoring what others are saying.
It’s not the cheating. It’s the “porking your HR lady” part that’s a problem for companies who dont want to get sued.
I haven’t read to many articles on the matter but for all we know hr lady does not like him at all but wanted to keep/get that job and now she is stuck in an abusive relationship. Can’t share with her partner cause yeah… And can’t get HR to step in cause… Yeah.
No evidence that is the case but that’s why we should fire CEOs who date their underlings. You are right we should absolutely not be firing people for not abiding a religious/social contract that has nothing to do with their job.
At no company is HR ever going to step in over something the CEO is doing because they don’t have the authority. -It is difficult to get an objective business take from a subordinate you’re porking, though.
Mostly true. Depends on the structure of the company I’d imagine. Pretending shit works like it’s written in the rule book and not exactly what you just said (won’t get involved cause he is boss) HR would absolutely bring this to the board of directors as it jeopardizes the company’s bottom line. And we all know Money is the real boss.
I think the main issue is that he was cheating with the head of HR
The main issue is hiding it. Hes not fucking batman or something. Divorce your wife and get with the hr lady who gives a fuck, dont act like its some schoolyard secret.
The main issue for the company is that he’s having an affair with a person directly under him in the company - it’s a conflict of interest at the very least, with the possibility of the person higher up in the hierarchy having leveraged their position to get sexual gratification from their underling and/or of the underling having used their sexuality to influence that higher up in the professional domain (for example, to get salary raises).
Absolutely, they might both be impeccably professional and not let their romantic relationship influence their professional relationship, but the company doesn’t know that and it’s hard to disprove that it wasn’t so.
On the Moral and Ethical plan, the main issue is indeed that they’re betraying their respective partners in secret rather than having assumed their relationship.
Its entirely possible that if they disclosed the relationship to the board or whoever, they would have an arrangement where he doesnt have to quit.
True.
It boils down to how much they could keep their relationship professional at work even whilst romantically involved outside, and them keeping it hidden, whilst understandable, doesn’t exactly indicate to the board that they were professional about it (people who are impeccably professional about it immediatelly realised the potential conflict of interest and would have tried to address that risk and the impression around it, even if trying to keep it discrete).
Having come clean about it at least to some board members might have helped once the news came out because said people would have mentioned to the rest when the news blew up that they had been kept appraised of the situation, which might have helped. On the other hand it might’ve just guaranteed termination when they did come clean.
I had in my own professional career a situation which had the potential to explode (legal trouble, small but none the less some) and informed and kept my direct superior appraised of it, and when it did blow up and ended up in the newspapers (purelly by chance there was a freelance reporter there and the whole thing was “juicy” and a bit sleazy and made everyone involved look bad - great for gossip kind of news - so I guess that freelance reporter managed to sell the article to a couple of newspapers - good for her as she looked like she needed the money) I still got kicked out of my contract (I was a freelancer) because it made the company look bad. I was literally told that had the thing not ended up in the newspapers it would’ve been fine.
Thats a fair point to make although I would hold leadership to a different standard than freelancers.
I’m not really trying to pass judgment on the right or wrong of the situations.
I’m just pointing out that in my experience (not just personally but also for what I’ve seen with others) most companies will just ditch employees/“colaborators” if they can do so legally when some scandal involving those people hits the Press, quite independently of those people having done the professionally correct thing before it all became a scandal.
Being more of a well connected insider might protect one from this, but my impression is that the initial reaction is to remove the person connected to a scandal in the Press, and then maybe they’ll come up with some arrangement if that person has enough influence with the right people within the company, and I guess this guy - even being the CEO - did not.
(Obviously in my own situation, is was a freelancer hence easy to legally let go even in Europe, and with enough distance down the chain from the ultimate decision makers that even with my direct manager trying hard to keep me, they didn’t care enough about me or even him, so the outcome was pretty much guaranteed)
Two coworkers on equal footing is one thing (though still discouraged), but when there’s a power imbalance (ceo-hr, manager-associate) it becomes a pretty significant conflict of interest.
Some examples;
A Manager gives favor to their lover and promotes them over other employees that fit the position better or did more to earn it.
CEO signs off on a big bonus for their subordinate lover, who then shares it with them on a fancy cruise.
All this tells me is that he is rich enough to not care about a job and just take a sabbatical until the commotion has died down.
Its all just not wanting to deal with other humans.
He should run for President instead
A big part of being a CEO is being the face of the company. Many companies hire a CEO simply based on their recognition in the industry. If you have a bad image, companies won’t want to associate with you.
Because if you’ve been proven to be immoral and a liar no one wants to work with you or buy your product. Of course they’re going to force the CEO out.
Just like mr trump right? Right?
Ehhh, cults are a little different
It’s different when you’re majority stakeholder. No one with enough influence to force you to do anything.
if you’ve been proven to be immoral and a liar no one wants to work with you or buy your product
*Donald Trump enters the chat
They only get forced out when they get caught.
Immoral liars are mandatory for C-suite positions otherwise.
This story is being promoted in the media to distract from trump being a child rapist
YEAH GEE I WONDER WHY THIS BECAME THE NUMBER ONE STORY GLOBALLY RIGHT NOW IT’S SUCH A FUCKING MYSTERY OH MY LET’S CALL SCOOBY DOO AND THE GHOSTBUSTERS
Fucking jesus almighty christ have you people learned NOTHING!?
Who is this referencing?
That’s James Hetfield of Metallica embracing Dave Mustaine formerly of Metallica and frontman for Megadeth
Is that them mocking it or is it an old pic?
Given their history, I am going to say the image is not real.
This story is being promoted in the media to distract from trump being a child rapist
sure, but like there can be more than one thing happening.
Exactly. He can rape little girls AND women.
Also he can do all that raping AND also beat his ex wife because she was the one who suggested the doctor that did his hair transplant which then became painful (according to the court case that got paid off).
Furthermore he can do all that raping and beating and paying off of victims AND also bankrupt many casinos!
That dude is a multi tasker if I ever did see one.Yea it’s just obv promoted. Like what even is that completely irrelevant nonsense company
Never underestimate how much of the media and society love to see schadenfreude. It’s basically escapism from the daily onslaught of terrible news all the time.
No, this absolute teen goss bullshit was pushed HARD on the public specifically to distract from the Epstein shit. They saw anything and it went fucking VIRAL.
Get your head out of your fucking asshole, this was pushed, nothing about this ridiculous nonsense would have made a single wave two months ago.
For fuck’s sakes.
Sounds like both of them might be shitty people. Which is standard fair in this lovely world of ours. However one of them is a CEO - and that opens the door for some proper shadenfreude.
He’s now at the “find out” phase of things lol
Big mistake. You always play it cool. If the police catch you getting your dick sucked, just play it cool. They won’t suspect a thing.
Just say it wasn’t you
But I saw you in the bathroom.
You can’t use past tense when they’re looking right at you.
deleted by creator
I think we as a society need to get over compulsory monogamy. It clearly doesn’t work for everybody. Why must two consenting adults refrain from expressing mutual love for one another?
Don’t get me wrong, cheating is unethical and monogamy is still valid for those who want it. But the idea that monogamy is the most pure form of love is a social construct that has no basis in reality.
If you don’t want to be monogamous don’t get married. It’s an easy solution.
Why would marriage be an issue? It’s convenient for purposes of healthcare coverage, hospital visitation rights, guarantees that without a will stating otherwise your spouse makes all decisions regarding the disposal of your corpse, and they automatically inherit any wealth you have, and if you have military benefits in many cases marriage is required to transfer those, or have them automatically transfer on death.
I’m not monogamous, neither is my spouse, but we are married because of all the above reasons. Marriage isn’t about love and monogamy it’s about financial and death planning
You’re right to call out that marriage != monogamy. The comment should have been:
If you don’t want to be monogamous don’t get
marriedinto a monogamous relationship. It’s an easy solution.Except all those advantage of officially marriage cannot be enjoyed by people who actually want the polygamous marriage as the system does not recognize that.
Oh for sure, it’s incredibly frustrating, even more so since realistically no one is really fighting for poly marriage recognition outside a couple east coast towns. That’s great and all, but isn’t perfect by a long shot. I’ve toyed with reporting myself for polygamy (well technically it would be bigamy stauetorally) and trying to get it overturned that way, though looking through case law and the like I don’t really see a way that would work. And there aren’t enough of us to really easily get it on the ballot I don’t think.
Or have ab open marriage, or habr a marriage where you swing
Good point.
The idea is that no one is stopping you from being poly. If that’s the type of relationship you want, then have fun with that. The problem in this case is when he wants to see other people and his wife believes they’re in a monogamous relationship.
My issue is that people jumped to harrassing these people before they knew that and then used that newfound knowledge to justify said harrassment.
no one is stopping you from being poly
While that’s technically true, it’s a lot more nuanced than that.
Our society instills monogamous values in its media and traditions. The sentiment around polyamory is that it’s weird, naive, frivolous and immature at best. The very suggestion of polyamory outside of friendly circles is often met with negative vitriol, as evidenced by the amount of down votes I’m getting in this thread.
I recognize now that I have always leaned towards polyamory and that’s been an awakening that’s taken nearly a decade over the last third of my life. I never cheated but I went through deep emotional pain and have caused emotional pain to others trying to figure that out in a world that was telling me monogamy was what I needed to strive for if I wanted a meaningful relationship. Even now, I’m voluntarily in a monogamous relationship because I deeply value my partner, though I can’t help but wish society hadn’t scared me into rejecting that part of myself for the better part of my life.
The problem in this case is when he wants to see other people and his wife believes they’re in a monogamous relationship.
I never argued against that. Cheating in any relationship is deceptive and immoral. My qualms are with the fact that our society is biased against non-monogamy and due to that many people don’t realize it’s an option and instead resort to ways of getting their needs met that cause emotional harm and turmoil.
I don’t think western governments allow polygamous marriages. Or do you mean only dating and never having legal rights?
I was mostly just talking about OP’s “compulsory monogamy”, which is obviously nonsense. No one is forcing you to be monogamous. If you don’t want monogamy, don’t do it, assuming your partner is okay with it.
Having some kind of polygamous marriage arrangement as a legal agreement is a different issue that should be worked out.
“compulsory monogamy”, which is obviously nonsense
Compulsory heterosexuality has been the standard of our society for centuries up until very recently. It was common for closeted gay men to marry women in order to fit into society and then have secret affairs with other men on the side to satisfy their homosexuality. That’s changed over the last few decades but even now it still happens. Would you have told a gay man from 50 years ago that compulsory heterosexuality is nonsense? That nobody is forcing them to fall in love with and marry a woman? Despite the fact that every social normality and structure was oriented towards heterosexuality and fiercely rejected homosexuality to the point where homosexual people closeted themselves out of fear for their own lives.
I’m not saying non-monogamous people have it as bad as homosexual people did in the previous era. But you can’t deny that our society strongly encourages monogamy and strongly discourages non-monogamy through social norms and structures. Similar to homosexuality in the previous era, there are little to no widely available resources for non-monogamous people to help them understand that part of themselves and the vast majority of them don’t consider it to be an option due to the stigmatization of non-monogamous relationships; in other words, compulsory.
You do know that -gamy means marriage right? We aren’t talking about polyamory, we are talking about polygamy.
You can be in a non-monogamous marriage. Quite common, actually.
That’s frankly a poor take.
On one hand, you’re arguing that the social and legal benefits of marriage should be exclusive to monogamous couples. Why should marriage require monogamy? It may imply monogamy by tradition but up until recently those same traditions excluded same-sex couples and we’ve moved on from that requirement by now.
Alternatively, there exist those who are married but practice some form of non-monogamy, e.g. swingers, porn stars, polyamorous couples, separated couples. Does practicing non-monogamy invalidate their marriage? You could argue that it traditionally would, but again, we’ve already moved on from traditional marriage. In reality, the only thing that invalidates a marriage is divorce or death. Monogamy is not a requirement.
On the other hand, you seem to be implying that committed romantic relationships outside of marriage aren’t widely and by default of social expectation (i.e. compulsory) monogamous. I’m certain you would be hard pressed to find anybody who would tell you otherwise.
Regardless, it’s still at the very least a grey area to get involved with a subordinate, and I think a majority would find that unethical regardless.
I think a majority would find that unethical regardless. Majority of Americans, no doubt. Majority of the rest of the world, probably not.
When I was beginning to work at the university, there was a professor who had started an affair with his student. Everybody knew about that, no one cared a s***. Later on, the student got employed at the department, and then they got married. The only thing I ever heard of it being talked about was that it wasn’t quite sure whether it was the student or her professor who actually did her “maturity exam” (a then-compulsory exam after finishing your MA thesis, the questions of which were based on the thesis).
It’s shitty of them, especially him. But, at least he has the decency and shame left to step down after this.
Why “especially him?” And why is he the only one of them who needs to resign from their job? Why is it only the men who get heat for having affairs like this? You think she didn’t know he was married? Why this societal bias?
Why “especially him?”
Maybe because of the power imbalance? Wasn’t he her superior?
Why is it only the men who get heat for having affairs like this?
What strange world do you live in? Usually women are treated much worse after such incidents.
You think she didn’t know he was married?
And in such case, why is HIS marriage her responsibility?
There may have been an imbalance, but seems the nature of the relationship was pretty mutual, not coerced.
I think in this specific scenario, the guy has been flamed pretty hard
FYI, they were both married people with their respective marriages.
Maybe because of the power imbalance? Wasn’t he her superior?
I don’t see that being pertinent here. You think she was pressured into sleeping with her boss? I’d take that bet.
What strange world do you live in? Usually women are treated much worse after such incidents.
LOL, no, they’re not. You’re the one in a strange world, apparently.
And in such case, why is HIS marriage her responsibility?
Oh, I see. You don’t think the unattached person in an affair has any responsibility for wrecking a home, even though they know they’re doing it. What a strange sense of morality you have.
I think you just like letting women off the hook because you’re sexist.
Holy sexist knee jerk reaction, Batman.
Yeah, pointing out the sexism of others is so sexist. Mainstay defense of sexists.
Let’s not say he has decency. His other option was probably to be fired.
It’s like nuance here is fucking dead and people only understand absolutes, jesus christ.
Let me put it this way: had he not resigned, he would be an even bigger piece of shit.
It’s such a shame. They should not kill themselves, like Epstein.
